Carter displays lack of ethics

Re: “The ethics of shopping in a pandemic,” March 23 commentary

The problem with Stephen Carter writing about the ethics of shopping during a pandemic is that he appears not to have any. He tells us that in an emergency, “its okay to prioritize your safety and your family’s.” This sounds sensible until one realizes that exactly the same justification can be used by people to kick down the doors of hoarders and take what their families need.

Carter is also apparently unfamiliar with the well proven economic concept of market failure. In periods of supply disruption or extreme demand, prices no longer convey useful information to producers. The whole world knows that there are not enough ventilators. Will raising the price to $20 million each produce a single additional ventilator? No, the factories are already running at their maximum capacity. The same is true for hand sanitizer and wipes.

Carter makes the argument that higher prices will keep more goods on the shelf. They would, but it will also make it much more convenient for Carter, and those like him, who have the money to pay. Carter tells us that he is in favor of subsidizing the purchases of the poor, all the while knowing full well that, in an emergency, this will never happen.

Carter’s arguments ultimately rest on the economically flawed and morally bankrupt notion that, in an emergency, price gouging is perfectly acceptable and that Americans are only entitled to the food and medicine that they can afford to buy. Do you agree?

Guy Wroble, Denver